ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
|
|
- Tracy Blankenship
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV CHARLES BRYAN DYER AND EDWARDS TITLE, LLC APPELLANTS V. Opinion Delivered September 2, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 17CV ] ARKANSAS INSURANCE DEPARTMENT APPELLEE HONORABLE GARY COTTRELL, JUDGE AFFIRMED WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant Charles Dyer and his title-insurance agency, Edwards Title, LLC, challenge the revocation of their insurance license by appellee, the Arkansas Insurance Department (Department). Dyer appealed to the Crawford County Circuit Court, which affirmed the revocation. We affirm the circuit court and the Department. I. Background Dyer owns Edwards Title, LLC, formerly known as Edwards Abstract Company. His business involves selling title insurance to prospective home buyers and performing closing services in real-estate transactions. Closing services include preparation of settlement documents; maintenance of an escrow account, which primarily consists of the purchase money forwarded by home buyers or their lenders; and payment of the purchase money to the seller or the seller s mortgagee. In 2003, Dyer discovered that a trusted employee named Susan Hudson had embezzled
2 money from his agency. Dyer did not fire Hudson but allowed her to continue as a closer for the agency. He attempted to prevent future losses by, among other things, requiring two signatures on checks, although Hudson was retained as a signatory. He also began reconciling the escrow account weekly for a period of time. 1 In 2008, one of Dyer s title-insurance underwriters, Chicago Title, conducted an audit of Dyer s agency. The audit found that Dyer was delinquent in performing escrow-account reconciliations and that management did not critically review or formally approve bank reconciliations. Dyer s relationship with Chicago Title was later terminated by mutual consent. Dyer then entered into a contract with another title-insurance underwriter, Stewart Title Guaranty. Stewart conducted initial audits of Dyer and noted that Dyer had delayed in reconciling escrow accounts; had outstanding checks and deposits from 2007; experienced excessive time lapses between closing and the recording of documents; and delayed mortgage payoffs in some files. Subsequent audits identified similar issues, plus overdraft charges; insurance policies not being sent to Stewart in a timely fashion; and infrequent reconciliations. In early 2011, Dyer learned that Susan Hudson had resumed embezzling from the agency as early as Hudson s methodology was complex but, simply put, she manipulated the agency s automated escrow accounting system, into which she entered realestate closing information. She made entries to show that a check had been written to payoff 1 An escrow account is reconciled to ensure that the money in the account has been disbursed to the proper parties in the real-estate transactions that are handled by the agency. 2
3 a seller s mortgage but, in reality, the check would be voided and the funds not disbursed rather, the funds remained in the agency s escrow account, or one of its old escrow accounts that had never been closed. Hudson diverted some of the hidden funds for her own use, thereby leaving the seller s mortgage unpaid for a long period of time. At some point, she would use funds from a subsequent closing to satisfy the unpaid mortgage. This, however, simply resulted in the subsequent closing having a late payoff as well. Hudson s activities were not detected by Dyer until February In that month, a bank officer called Dyer to report that the mortgage of a Mr. Mize, who had closed at Dyer s agency a few months earlier, had not been paid off. While investigating the matter, Dyer learned that Hudson had been taking money from the agency and that she had used the proceeds from the Mize closing and other closings in furtherance of her scheme. Dyer terminated Hudson and paid off the Mize loan with escrow-account funds. Approximately six weeks later, Dyer obtained a personal loan and placed $185,000 into the escrow account. During that six-week interim, there were insufficient-funds charges on the escrow account, and Dyer continued to perform closings, despite the escrow account s being short of money. Dyer did not disclose Hudson s theft to Stewart Guaranty until September At that point, Stewart reminded Dyer to inform the Department, which Dyer did not do. Stewart also audited Dyer and terminated its relationship with him. Stewart informed the Department of its split with Dyer, and this marked the first notification to the Department about Hudson s theft. 3
4 II. Insurance Department Investigation The Department launched an investigation upon learning of the situation at Dyer s agency. It obtained the files on which Hudson had been the closer between January 2009 and February 2011, and reviewed Dyer s bank statements and the audits that had been performed by Chicago Title and Stewart Guaranty. In the course of the inquiry, investigator Sarah Gray discovered problems with over 300 of Dyer s files. Many of the files still contained the client s original title policy or original warranty deed, which had never been mailed to the client. Gray also found occasions where Dyer had waited a significant amount of time after closing to pay some insurance premiums to Stewart and had made untimely mortgage pay-offs as well. In particular, the Department learned that mortgage payoffs of two sellers were delayed to the extent that they received late notices from their banks and, in one instance, a foreclosure action was filed. Gray additionally saw that title policies were sometimes issued to the new home buyer before the previous owner s loan on the property was paid off, which was an incorrect procedure. Probing further, Gray found that Dyer s post-2008 policies and other documents listed his business name as Charles B. Dyer d/b/a Edwards Abstract Company rather than Edwards Title, LLC, which had been his business name since January She observed that these documents also lacked Dyer s license number and the required Department contact information. Additionally, Gray learned that, during the Stewart audits, Dyer had not reported the existence of either his old escrow accounts or a high-yield sweep account, into which monies from the escrow account were temporarily placed to earn interest for the agency. 4
5 Another Department examiner, Taryn Lewis, investigated Dyer s files in an attempt to discover the extent of Hudson s misappropriations. Lewis observed that some of the information she found did not coincide with the information that Dyer had provided to her during the course of the investigation. Her inquiry also revealed errors, inconsistencies, and changes in Dyer s disbursement sheets and settlement statements; lack of payoff information in some files; and several transfers between escrow accounts, or between the escrow accounts and the high-yield account. Lewis questioned the effectiveness of the security measures that Dyer imposed after Hudson s 2003 theft. The Department also received two complaint letters regarding Dyer. In one, a consumer complained that he waited five months for his title policy and that he had yet to receive his original deed. In a second, a credit union complained about Dyer s poor service and lack of timeliness in providing recorded documents and responding to questions. The Department also discovered problems regarding funds in Dyer s bank accounts. One of his old escrow accounts had a balance of approximately $17,000 that could not be satisfactorily explained. Dyer claimed the money as his own, despite its presence in an escrow account. In another instance, a bank statement showed that, in November 2008, $159,000 had to be transferred from the sweep account to an escrow account to cover insufficient-funds fees. Finally, the Department investigated an incident in which Dyer mistakenly paid a man named James Young approximately $30,000 from an escrow account. To recover the money, Dyer sued Young, but did not replace the money in the escrow account for several years, doing so with a loan from his mother. Upon obtaining a judgment against Young, Dyer paid 5
6 back his mother and put the majority of the judgment amount into his personal account. III. Administrative Hearing and Order As the result of its investigation, the Department scheduled an administrative hearing to address Dyer s regulatory violations and to determine whether his license should be revoked, suspended, or subject to other sanctions. The Department sent Dyer a hearing notice containing the allegations against him. During the lengthy hearing, the Department received the abovementioned evidence, including the Stewart Title audits, the Chicago Title audit, and the complaints filed with the Department. The Department also heard the testimony of expert witness Lynn Wilburn, who stated that Dyer had not met the standards for running a title agency due to his poor financial habits and putting other people s money at risk. Wilburn cited numerous areas of concern, including overdrafts and insufficient-funds charges in escrow accounts; keeping old escrow accounts open; files without payoff statements in them; failure to perform timely reconciliations and monitor voided checks; and sellers payoffs not being made immediately upon closing. She stated that Hudson was able to commit fraud because no one was paying attention and monitoring her. Dyer called his own expert, who essentially testified that Dyer s practices were not unusual and did not cause harm to Dyer s customers or underwriters. Dyer s character witnesses stated that he was a reputable and knowledgeable businessman. Dyer himself testified that he had been involved in a serious car accident in October 2010 and had not been able to attend to his office duties for a significant period of time. He denied any knowledge of 6
7 Hudson s fraud and indeed there was no evidence that he benefited in any way from Hudson s scheme. Following the hearing, the Department issued an order on October 4, 2012, revoking Dyer s license. The revocation was based on findings of misappropriation; failure to report or disclose certain matters; failure to deliver or have proper information on certain documents; and problems with record-keeping and business practices. Dyer petitioned the Crawford County Circuit Court for review, and the court upheld the Department s revocation. This appeal followed. IV. Standard of Review The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Arkansas Insurance Code provide alternate means of seeking judicial review of an Department order. 2 The APA provides that an agency decision may be reversed if, among other reasons, it is not supported by substantial evidence of record. 3 The Insurance Code similarly provides that the Insurance Commissioner s findings of fact shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 4 In administrative appeals, our review is not directed to the circuit court but to the agency s decision. 5 That is because administrative agencies are better equipped by specialization, insight through experience, and more flexible procedures than courts, to 2 Travelers Indem. Co. v. Monroe, 257 Ark. 1029, 522 S.W.2d 431 (1975). 3 Ark. Code Ann (h)(5) (Repl. 2014). 4 Ark. Code Ann (g)(2) (Repl. 2012). 5 Obigbo v. Ark. State Bd. of Nursing, 2014 Ark. App. 675, 449 S.W.3d
8 determine and analyze legal issues affecting their agencies. 6 As mentioned, agency decisions will be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence. 7 To establish a lack of substantial evidence, the appellant must demonstrate that fair-minded people could not, on the evidence submitted, reach the conclusion arrived at by the agency. 8 On appeal, we give the evidence its strongest probative force in favor of the agency s findings. 9 The question is not whether the evidence would support any other finding but, instead, whether the evidence supports the finding that was made. 10 V. Hearing Notice Dyer argues first that the hearing notice sent to him by the Department did not provide sufficient warning of the allegations against him. 11 We disagree. The notice contained twelve lettered paragraphs describing Dyer s alleged misconduct. The list of allegations included: diverting, misappropriating, or failing to account for escrow funds and premiums; failing to report employee theft; not reporting policies or timely remitting premiums to the underwriter; issuing title policies prior to paying off the mortgage; not delivering policies to the consumer in a timely manner; not putting proper information 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Dyer does not challenge the timing of the notice. 8
9 on documents, such as the agent s license number, correct company name, Department contact information, and a required statutory notice; and failing to maintain records in closing files and records of escrow accounts. Each paragraph designated a corresponding statute or administrative rule. Dyer contends that the hearing notice was not specific enough to apprise him of the allegations against him and complains that the Department s Revocation Order therefore found several violations that were not listed in the hearing notice. We see no error. The APA required the Department to notify Dyer of the facts or conduct warranting the intended action. 12 The APA further requires a reasonable notice that includes a short and plain statement of the matters of fact and law asserted. 13 Under the Insurance Code, a notice must state the matters to be considered at the hearing. 14 The notice in this case met the statutory standards. It plainly charged Dyer, for example, with diverting or misappropriating escrow funds, which coincided with the specific instances of misappropriation found in the Revocation Order, such as the James Young lawsuit recovery of $30,000, which Dyer put in his own account; the existence of approximately $17,000 in an old escrow account that Dyer claimed as his own; and Dyer s maintaining a sweep account, which utilized escrow funds to earn interest for himself. Similarly, other allegations in the notice reasonably informed Dyer of the type of violations 12 Ark. Code Ann (c) (Repl. 2014). 13 Ark. Code Ann (a)(2)(C) (Repl. 2014). 14 Ark. Code Ann (a) (Repl. 2012). 9
10 that would later be cited in the Department s Order as a basis for revocation. The law did not require the Department to provide a detailed description of Dyer s precise instances of misconduct. Dyer also argues that the Department s notice failed to advise him that his current ability to serve as an agent would be called into question. To the contrary, the notice stated that Dyer s license could be revoked as the result of the listed violations. VI. Evidentiary Issues Dyer argues next that the Department s hearing officer erred in admitting certain documents into evidence. The documents in question were presented by Department witnesses and included the Chicago Title audit; the Stewart Guaranty audits; a spreadsheet that a Department investigator prepared with information obtained from another person; and the complaints filed by a consumer and a credit union. Dyer asked that the documents be excluded on hearsay and due-process grounds because they were prepared by persons who were not present to testify at the hearing and, consequently, were not subject to crossexamination. The hearing officer overruled Dyer s objection. We agree with Dyer that the challenged documents likely contained hearsay, given that those who authored the documents were not present at the hearing. 15 We further recognize that parties to an administrative hearing are entitled to due process, 16 and have the right to 15 See New Empire Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 235 Ark. 758, 362 S.W.2d 4 (1962). 16 Sparkman Learning Ctr., Inc. v. Ark. Dep t of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App
11 conduct cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. 17 Nevertheless, we do not reverse the Department s admission of evidence in this case. The rules of evidence are relaxed in an administrative proceeding. 18 In fact, hearsay evidence is normally admissible in administrative proceedings if it is reliable and probative. 19 Moreover, Dyer had the ability to subpoena witnesses and could have called the document preparers himself. 20 Alternatively, he could have asked for a continuance or a rehearing to call the declarants and cross-examine them. 21 In Arkansas Department of Human Services v. A.B., 22 our supreme court held that, where an administrative scheme provides for the issuance of subpoenas by a party, that party cannot complain that his due-process rights were violated by not having the opportunity to cross-examine a witness. The facts in A.B. were somewhat different than this case there, the party subpoenaed a witness but did not call him but the principle remains the same. Dyer could have used the subpoena power that the law afforded him, or he could have asked for a postponement or an extended hearing. He did neither. We (1988). 17 Ark. Code Ann (5) (Repl. 2014). 18 Ark. Contractors Lic. Bd. v. Butler Constr. Co., Inc., 295 Ark. 223, 748 S.W.2d See Ark. State Bd. of Nursing v. Long, 8 Ark. App. 288, 651 S.W.2d 109 (1983). See also Ark. Code Ann (4)(providing that, while irrelevant, immaterial, and unduly repetitive evidence shall be excluded during an administrative hearing any other oral or documentary evidence, not privileged, may be received if it is of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent people in the conduct of their affairs). 20 See Ark. Code Ann (a)(7)(A). 21 See generally Farmer v. Everett, 8 Ark. App. 23, 648 S.W.2d 513 (1983) Ark. 193, 286 S.W.3d 712 (2008). 11
12 therefore uphold the administrative agency s refusal to exclude the evidence outright. VII. Substantial Evidence Dyer argues that the violations found by the Department were not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion and cause it to pass beyond speculation and conjecture. 23 We reiterate that we accord great deference to an administrative agency s expertise and give the evidence its strongest probative force in favor of the agency s findings. 24 Dyer directs several assignments of error to various specific findings in the Revocation Order. However, we need not recount each of the Order s many findings, nor each of Dyer s individual challenges. It is sufficient to say that, based on the proof cited herein, the facts reveal a longtime pattern by Dyer of poor record-keeping, poor management, and questionable business practices that enabled his employee, Hudson, to commit fraud, even after she had embezzled from the agency on a previous occasion. The evidence in particular depicted Dyer s continuing failure to maintain proper records of his escrow accounts and his files. This facilitated Hudson s being able to continue her fraudulent scheme undetected, and led to many of Dyer s customers not receiving their title policies and deeds in a timely fashion, thus violating the record-keeping requirement of the Arkansas Title Insurance Act. 25 The evidence also showed Dyer s disregard for the sanctity of his escrow accounts, 23 Ark. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam rs v. Currie, 2013 Ark. App Obigbo, 2014 Ark. App. 675, 449 S.W.3d Ark. Code Ann (Repl. 2014). 12
13 which contained money belonging to clients. His personal use of or retention of funds in his escrow accounts was shown by substantial evidence, thereby proving an appropriation or diversion of funds for his own use in violation of the Insurance Code. 26 Additionally, there was proof of Dyer s failure to place correct information on title policies regarding his license, business name, and the required statutory notices. 27 He argues that forms provided by Stewart Title were to blame for these omissions, but there was testimony that putting the proper information on the forms was his obligation and that he could have met the obligation. These findings constitute substantial evidence that Dyer engaged in serious violations of Arkansas s insurance law, which warranted the sanction of revocation. We therefore affirm on this point. VIII. Harshness of Sanctions Dyer argues that the sanction of revocation was too harsh. However, revocation was an available sanction for the violations that occurred. 28 He also argues that the Department s case was based on potential harm to others, rather than harm actually inflicted. The evidence shows otherwise, but, even so, we would not fault an administrative authority for using sanctions to prevent a foreseeable harm before it occurs. Dyer further contends that his violations were technical rather than substantive. Some 26 See Ark. Code Ann (Repl. 2012). 27 See Ark. Code Ann (Repl. 2012), and (2) (Repl. 2014). 28 See Ark. Code Ann (a) (Repl. 2012). 13
14 of the violations could be deemed technical, but there was also evidence that Dyer failed to fulfill his fiduciary duties with regard to his clients documents and money. 29 IX. Conclusion For the above reasons, we affirm the circuit court and the administrative agency s revocation order. Affirmed. GLADWIN, C.J., and VIRDEN, J., agree. Joseph C. Self, for appellant. Amanda J. Andrews, Assoc. Counsel, Ark. Ins. Dep t, for appellee. 29 Dyer cites other license proceedings that were heard by the Department in which the sanction of revocation was not imposed. Without knowing the full details and evidence in those cases, we decline to compare them with the present case. 14
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-14-1074 STEVEN J. WILSON and CHRISTINA R. WILSON APPELLANTS V. Opinion Delivered APRIL 22, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-2014-350-6]
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. DFW ADVISORS LTD. CO., Appellant V. JACQUELINE ERVIN, Appellee
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed February 11, 2016. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00883-CV DFW ADVISORS LTD. CO., Appellant V. JACQUELINE ERVIN, Appellee On Appeal from
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CA10-636 Opinion Delivered February 9, 2011 RICHARD L. MYERS ET AL. APPELLANTS V. PETER KARL BOGNER, SR., ET AL. APPELLEES APPEAL FROM THE CARROLL COUNTY CIRCUIT
More informationCite as 2018 Ark. 16 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
Cite as 2018 Ark. 16 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-16-697 Opinion Delivered: January 18, 2018 HELENA COUNTRY CLUB APPELLANT V. BILLY RAY BROCATO D/B/A SPLASH POOL AND SPA APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE PHILLIPS
More informationDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. Board Rules
District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility Board Rules Adopted June 23, 1983 Effective July 1, 1983 This edition represents a complete revision of the Board Rules. All previous
More informationSamuel T. Gindes v. W. Wajeed Khan et ux., No. 85, September Term, mistaken premise that current form of statute was the applicable
Samuel T. Gindes v. W. Wajeed Khan et ux., No. 85, September Term, 1996. [Multiple defendantsu case tried and decided against appellant on mistaken premise that current form of statute was the applicable
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 03-0333 444444444444 RANDY PRETZER, SCOTT BOSSIER, BOSSIER CHRYSLER-DODGE II, INC., PETITIONERS, v. THE MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD AND MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 21, 2011 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 21, 2011 Session ROBERT H. GOODALL, JR. v. WILLIAM B. AKERS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumner County No. 26169-C Tom E. Gray, Chancellor
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE TARUN VIG, an unmarried man, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. NIX PROJECT II PARTNERSHIP, an Arizona general partnership, Defendant/Appellee No. 1 CA-CV 08-0112
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 23, 2012 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 23, 2012 Session FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR TENNESSEE COMMERCE BANK v. BILL CHAPMAN, JR.; LISA CHAPMAN; CHAPMAN VENTURES,
More informationCite as 2019 Ark. 95 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
Cite as 2019 Ark. 95 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-18-47 Opinion Delivered: April 11, 2019 KW-DW PROPERTIES, LLC; DEBRA A. LANG, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS WHITE COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR; SUE LILES, IN
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CA09-928 ROCKY LAWRENCE and DEBRA LAWRENCE APPELLANTS V. PATSY CRAFTON BARNES f/k/a PATSY CRAFTON SMITH, KIMBERLY ZELLNER WARD, TREVOR WARD, STEVEN ZELLNER, MISTY
More informationFRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION (FCERA) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND APPEALS TO THE BOARD POLICY
FRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION () ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND APPEALS TO THE BOARD POLICY I. PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY 1) Assuring that members and beneficiaries receive the correct benefits
More informationTrust accounting. A. Required records; maintenance and reporting. (1) Types of records. Every attorney subject to these rules shall maintain
17-204. Trust accounting. A. Required records; maintenance and reporting. (1) Types of records. Every attorney subject to these rules shall maintain complete records, in either hard copy or stored electronically
More informationFlorida House of Representatives HB 889 By Representative Melvin
By Representative Melvin 1 A bill to be entitled 2 An act relating to vessels; creating s. 3 327.901, F.S.; creating the "Vessel Warranty 4 Enforcement Act," also known as the "Vessel 5 Lemon Law"; creating
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CITIZEN COMPLAINTS REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF STATE ELECTION AND VOTER REGISTRATION LAWS
Agency # 108.00 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CITIZEN COMPLAINTS REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF STATE ELECTION AND VOTER REGISTRATION LAWS (Effective February 6, 2004; Revised December 29, 2015) State Board of Election
More informationUSA v. Crystal Paling
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-17-2014 USA v. Crystal Paling Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-4380 Follow this and
More informationOffice of the Clerk of Circuit Court Anne Arundel County, Maryland
Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Anne Arundel County, Maryland September 2007 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and
More informationFIFTH DISTRICT. PRESIDING JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the court:
Rule 23 order filed NO. 5-06-0664 May 21, 2008; Motion to publish granted IN THE June 16, 2008. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C., Appeal from the Circuit Court
More informationCHAPTER 44 HOUSE BILL 2434 AN ACT
House Engrossed State of Arizona House of Representatives Fifty-third Legislature Second Regular Session 0 CHAPTER HOUSE BILL AN ACT AMENDING SECTION -.0, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE, ARIZONA
More informationDenver Investment Group Inc.; Gary Clark; Zone 93, Inc.; and Victoria Thomas, ORDER REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1729 Adams County District Court No. 03CV3126 Honorable John J. Vigil, Judge Adam Shotkoski and Anita Shotkoski, Plaintiffs Appellees, v. Denver Investment
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned of Briefs December 3, 2009
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned of Briefs December 3, 2009 MIN GONG v. IDA L. POYNTER Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. MCCCCVOD081186 Ross H. Hicks, Judge
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter of the Estate of ) MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, ) DIVISION ONE ) MARIA LUISA DE LA VEGA ) No. 66954-1-I FITZGERALD, as Personal ) Representative
More informationReverse and Render in part; Affirm in part; Opinion Filed July 23, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No.
Reverse and Render in part; Affirm in part; Opinion Filed July 23, 2015. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01269-CV TIFFANY LYNN FRASER, Appellant V. TIMOTHY PURNELL,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 11, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 11, 2006 Session FIDES NZIRUBUSA v. UNITED IMPORTS, INC., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 03C-1769 Hamilton Gayden,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DANIEL A. EATON. MARY LOUISE EATON & a. Argued: October 10, 2013 Opinion Issued: December 20, 2013
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationARBITRATION RULES AND PROCEDURES July 1, 2015 Copyright by CDRS 2013 all rights reserved
RESOLUTION SERVICES CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES, LLC SPECIALIZING IN MEDIATION & ARBITRATION & DISPUTE REVIEW BOARDS PO BOX 8029 Santa Fe, NM 87504 New Mexico: 505-473-7733 Toll Free: 888-930-0011
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC96980 PER CURIAM. THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. JAMES EDMUND BAKER, Respondent. [January 31, 2002] We have for review a referee s report regarding alleged ethical breaches
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) No. SC Complainant, The Florida Bar File v. No ,577(17J) REPORT OF REFEREE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case No. SC09-1317 Complainant, The Florida Bar File v. No. 2009-50,577(17J) TASHI IANA RICHARDS, Respondent. / REPORT
More informationCase 0:14-cv WPD Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:14-cv-60975-WPD Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 8 WENDY GRAVE and JOSEPH GRAVE, vs. Plaintiffs, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 13-1881 Elaine T. Huffman; Charlene S. Sandler lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Credit Union of Texas lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
More informationBEFORE THE STATE OF ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL BY REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
BEFORE THE STATE OF ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL BY REAL ESTATE COMMISSION In the Matter of the Surety Fund Claim of: DARLENE L. LARSEN, Claimant, v. GARY B. GREEN, 1 Respondent.
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. E-14-956 CHARLES HOLMES V. APPELLANT Opinion Delivered MAY 20, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW [NO. 2014-BR-02321] DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LAWSUIT FINANCING, INC., and RAINMAKER USA, L.L.C., UNPUBLISHED August 11, 2009 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 284717 Macomb Circuit Court ELIAS MUAWAD and LAW OFFICES
More informationSmall Business Lending Industry Briefing
Small Business Lending Industry Briefing Featuring Bob Coleman & Charles H. Green 1:50-2:00 PM E.T. Log on 10 minutes early before every Coleman webinar for a briefing on issues vital to the small business
More informationARKANSAS AUCTIONEER LICENSING BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS
ARKANSAS AUCTIONEER LICENSING BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS 1. STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS... 43 2. INFORMATION FOR PUBLIC GUIDANCE... 43 3. GENERAL INFORMATION.... 44 4. RULE MAKING AUTHORITY....
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 14, 2007 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 14, 2007 Session ROBERT G. O NEAL, d/b/a R & R CONSTRUCTION CO. v. PAUL E. HENSON, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sequatchie
More informationPROFESSIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEE PROCEDURES MANUAL
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEE PROCEDURES MANUAL NOVEMBER 19, 2014 NEW YORK STATE SOCIETY OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 14 WALL STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEE PROCEDURES
More informationINDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT
Indiana False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act, codified at 5-11-5.5 et seq (as amended through P.L. 109-2014) Indiana Medicaid False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act, codified at 5-11-5.7
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 4, 2011
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 4, 2011 ROBERT E. DAVIS ET AL. v. CRAWFORD L. WILLIAMS ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Loudon County No. 11472 Frank
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D v. Case No.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2010 PATRICIA GRANT, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D08-1711 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / GEISHA MORRIS, Appellant, v. Case No.
More informationOREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
1 of 6 7/2/2014 12:01 PM Meet Kate About Us Work With Us Contact Us Search The Oregon Administrative Rules contain OARs filed through June 15, 2014 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTENT OR MEANING OF THIS AGENCY'S
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 18, 2008 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 18, 2008 Session PSALMS, INC. d/b/a KIRBY PINES ESTATES. v. WILLIAM PRETSCH Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-000459-06
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. Nos. SC01-1403, SC01-2737, SC02-1592, & SC03-210 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. LEE HOWARD GROSS, Respondent. [March 3, 2005] We have for review a referee s report
More informationGENERAL RULES ABOUT COSTS
PRACTICE DIRECTION PART 44 DIRECTIONS RELATING TO PART 44 GENERAL RULES ABOUT COSTS SECTION 7 SOLICITOR S DUTY TO NOTIFY CLIENT: RULE 44.2 7.1 For the purposes of rule 44.2 client includes a party for
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed March 5, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01212-CV KHYBER HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellant V. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 96-BG A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. ROBERT R. COLE, JR., Appellant V. GWENDOLYN PARKER, INC.
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 4, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01655-CV ROBERT R. COLE, JR., Appellant V. GWENDOLYN PARKER, INC., Appellee On Appeal from
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS Estate of EDWIN R. KACOS. SCOTT A. KACOS and JEFFREY R. KACOS, Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of EDWIN R. KACOS, UNPUBLISHED May 3, 2012 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationIn this diversity action for money damages, Plaintiff Lydian Private Bank, d/b/a
Lydian Private Bank v. Leff et al Doc. 67 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x LYDIAN PRIVATE BANK d/b/a VIRTUALBANK, Plaintiff,
More informationPOSITION DESCRIPTION TRIAL ATTORNEY, GS
POSITION DESCRIPTION TRIAL ATTORNEY, GS-0905-13 SETID HUD01 JOB CODE FC0062 DATE 01/27/2012 OPM CERT # PAY PLAN GS SERIES 0905 GRADE 13 PAY BASIS Per Annum FUNC CLASS NA WORK TITLE TRIAL ATTORNEY SPVY
More informationCA DISMISSED. This appeal comes from a judgment in favor of appellee Guy Jones for $134,088 in
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION JOHN B. ROBBINS, JUDGE DIVISION II CA 07-97 SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 REVING BROUSSARD III, et al. APPELLANTS V. GUY JONES APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER
More informationNUMBER CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXAS STATE BOARD OF NURSING, BERNARDINO PEDRAZA JR.,
NUMBER 13-11-00068-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG TEXAS STATE BOARD OF NURSING, Appellants, v. BERNARDINO PEDRAZA JR., Appellee. On appeal from the 93rd District
More informationPLANO LINCOLN MERCURY, INC. v. ROBERTS 167 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. App. 2005)
PLANO LINCOLN MERCURY, INC. v. ROBERTS 167 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. App. 2005) LANG, Justice. Plano Lincoln Mercury, Inc., plaintiff below, appeals the trial court s final judgment on the jury verdict. The trial
More informationTools Regulatory Review Materials California Accountancy Act
Article 1.5 Continuing Education Tools Regulatory Review Materials California Accountancy Act 5026. Continuing education requirement The Legislature has determined it is in the public interest to require
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel: May 18, 2018 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STARK FUNERAL SERVICE, a/k/a MOORE MEMORIAL CHAPEL, INC, UNPUBLISHED March 8, 2002 Plaintiff, v No. 226936 Oakland Circuit Court NATIONAL CITY BANK OF LC No. 97-545784-CK
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL:08/10/2012 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON OCTOBER 14, 2003 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON OCTOBER 14, 2003 Session BRIAN & CANDY CHADWICK v. CHAD SPENCE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-007720-01 Kay Robilio, Judge
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 8, 2007 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 8, 2007 Session DAVID LAVY d/b/a DL CONSTRUCTION v. JOAN CARROLL Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hickman County No. 05-5014C Jeffrey S. Bivins,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) [TFB Nos ,980(07B); v ,684(07B)]
THE FLORIDA BAR, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) Complainant, Case No. SC07-661 [TFB Nos. 2005-30,980(07B); v. 2006-30,684(07B)] CHARLES BEHM, Respondent. / REVISED REPORT OF REFEREE
More informationARBITRATION RULES. Commercial Brokers Association
ARBITRATION RULES 1. Conduct of Hearings. All hearings shall be conducted in accordance with these Rules, and any procedures and forms approved by the Board of Directors. 2. Small Claims. All disputes
More informationBEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR. VSB Docket No , , , ORDER OF REVOCATION
VIRGINIA; BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR IN THE MATTER OF BRYAN JAMES WALDRON VSB Docket No. 17-051-106968, 18-051-109817, 18-051-111305, 18-051-111321 ORDER OF REVOCATION THIS
More informationTHE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT; AND
THE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT; AND IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF TERRANCE DAWE, A MEMBER OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA Hearing Committee: Rob
More informationChapter UNFAIR TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION. Article Credit Service Organizations
Chapter 50 -- UNFAIR TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION Article 11 --- Credit Service Organizations K.S.A. 50-1116. Kansas credit services organization act; citation; scope. (a) K.S.A. 50-1116 through 50-1135,
More informationAttorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Uzoma C. Obi No. AG 11, September Term, 2005
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Uzoma C. Obi No. AG 11, September Term, 2005 Headnote: ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE Our goal in attorney disciplinary matters is to protect the public and the public
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 13-CV-1168-EFM-TJJ MEMORANDUM AND
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-05-00264-CV Dalia Martinez, Appellant v. Daughters of Charity Health Services d/b/a Seton Medical Center, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term Argued: March 27, 2007 Decided: July 23, 2008
0--cv Rivkin v. Century Teran Realty LLC 0 0 0 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ------------- August Term 00 Argued: March, 00 Decided: July, 00 (Question certified to New York Court
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CA09-601 LILLIAN H. ASHTON TRUST AND LILLIAN H. BROOKS (f/k/a ASHTON), IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE LILLIAN H. ASHTON TRUST APPELLANTS V. Opinion Delivered
More informationLaw Society of Alberta Trust Safety: Responsible Lawyer & Trust Account Approval Protocol
Trust Safety: Responsible Lawyer & Trust Account Approval Mar 2, 2017 Trust Safety: Responsible Lawyer & Trust Account Approval Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Definitions... 1 Considerations for Approval
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ORDER AND REASONS
Kareem v. Markel Southwest Underwriters, Inc., et. al. Doc. 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA AMY KAREEM d/b/a JACKSON FASHION, LLC VERSUS MARKEL SOUTHWEST UNDERWRITERS, INC.
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued November 3, 2015 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-14-01025-CV ALI LAHIJANI AND MEGA SHIPPING, LLC, Appellants V. MELIFERA PARTNERS, LLC, MW REALTY GROUP, AND
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 06-1257 JOHN NASH, VS. APPELLANT, ARKANSAS ELEVATOR SAFETY BOARD AND ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, APPELLEES, Opinion Delivered June 21, 2007 APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY
More informationJS EVANGELISTA DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. FOUNDATION CAPITAL RESOURCE...
Page 1 of 5 J.S. EVANGELISTA DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., Plaintiff/Counter Defendant/Cross Plaintiff- Appellant, v. FOUNDATION CAPITAL RESOURCES, INC., Intervening Plaintiff/Counter Defendant/Cross Defendant-Appellee,
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CACR09-1389 Opinion Delivered September 29, 2010 CRAIG DEON THOMAS V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLANT APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT
More informationBY-LAWS OF HUNTINGTON SWIM AND TENNIS CLUB NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS April 2019 ARTICLE I. Organization
BY-LAWS OF HUNTINGTON SWIM AND TENNIS CLUB NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS April 2019 ARTICLE I Organization Section 1. Incorporation and Offices. The Huntington Swim and Tennis Club (the Club ) is incorporated under
More informationA Bill Regular Session, 2011 HOUSE BILL 2021
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. 0 State of Arkansas th General Assembly As Engrossed: H/0/ A Bill Regular Session, HOUSE BILL By: Representative
More informationREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2005 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ARTHUR HOFFMAN
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1785 September Term, 2005 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT v. ARTHUR HOFFMAN Eyler, James R., Krauser, Woodward, JJ. Opinion by Krauser,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CREDIT BASED ASSET SERVICING & SECURITIZATION, LLC, UNPUBLISHED March 22, 2007 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 273198 Saginaw Circuit Court FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, JUSTIN P. LAGAN,
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION III NANCY GARDNER, et al., ) No. ED101931 ) Appellants, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Mark D. Seigel
More informationAffirm in part; Reverse and Remand in part; Opinion Filed August 15, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Affirm in part; Reverse and Remand in part; Opinion Filed August 15, 2013. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00207-CV RANDALL LEE HALER, Appellant V. BOYINGTON CAPITAL
More informationGENERAL ARBITRATION RULES AND PROCEDURES Revised March 15, 2016 Copyright by CDRS 2016 all rights reserved
RESOLUTION SERVICES CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES, LLC SPECIALIZING IN MEDIATION & ARBITRATION & DISPUTE REVIEW BOARDS PO BOX 8029 Santa Fe, NM 87504 New Mexico: 505-473-7733 Toll Free: 888-930-0011
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-15-659 RAYMOND MORGAN and KATIE MORGAN APPELLANTS V. BIG CREEK FARMS OF HICKORY FLAT, INC. APPELLEE Opinion Delivered February 24, 2016 APPEAL FROM THE CLEBURNE
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2006
WARNER, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2006 THOMAS J. BARRY, Appellant, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 4D05-2060 [October 4, 2006] In a
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 2, 2008 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 2, 2008 Session CARLYNN MANNING ET AL. v. DALE K. SNYDER ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Polk County No. 7149 Jerri S. Bryant, Chancellor
More informationPresent: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, and Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, and Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice BRIDGETTE JORDAN, ET AL. OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No. 961320 February 28, 1997
More informationBaltimore Gas and Electric Company v. Michael Hendricks, et al. No. 78, September Term, Termination of utility service: burdens of proof.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company v. Michael Hendricks, et al. No. 78, September Term, 1996 Termination of utility service: burdens of proof. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 78 September Term,
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-12-1035 CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, LLC APPELLANT V. THOMAS WHILLOCK AND GAYLA WHILLOCK APPELLEES Opinion Delivered January 22, 2014 APPEAL FROM THE VAN BUREN
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00250-CV Alexandra Krot and American Homesites TX, LLC, Appellants v. Fidelity National Title Company, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 12-1857 Southern Wine and Spirits of Nevada, A Division of Southern Wine and Spirits of America, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 08-1184 SAVE ENERGY REAP TAXES, APPELLANT, VS. YOTA SHAW AND MORRIS STREET, APPELLEES, Opinion Delivered October 16, 2008 APPEAL FROM THE SHARP COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. CV2008-195,
More informationSIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...3 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Title 1, Chapter 38...3 TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I: General Provisions...4 Article IV: Relevancy
More informationAPPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Brown County: TIMOTHY A. HINKFUSS, Judge. Affirmed. Before Hoover, P.J., Peterson and Brunner, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 3, 2010 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 17, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 17, 2005 Session ARLEN WHISENANT v. BILL HEARD CHEVROLET, INC. A Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-03-0589-2 The Honorable
More informationTITLE 27 PROCEDURAL RULE BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN COUNSELING SERIES 12 CONTESTED CASE HEARING PROCEDURE FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST
TITLE 27 PROCEDURAL RULE BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN COUNSELING SERIES 12 CONTESTED CASE HEARING PROCEDURE FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST 27-12-1. General. 1.1. Scope. -- This rule specifies the procedure
More informationStreamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures
RESOLUTIONS, LLC s GUIDE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures 1. Scope of Rules The RESOLUTIONS, LLC Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures ("Rules") govern binding
More informationLOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: LOUIS JEROME STANLEY NUMBER: 14-DB-042 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 14-DB-042 3/1/2016 IN RE: LOUIS JEROME STANLEY NUMBER: 14-DB-042 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION This is an attorney disciplinary
More informationTITLE 40. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE, APPLICABILTY, and DEFINITIONS
TITLE 40. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE, APPLICABILTY, and DEFINITIONS 40 M.P.T.L. ch. 1, 1 1 Purpose a. The Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation has an interest in assuring that the administrative
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-03-00156-CV Amanda Baird; Peter Torres; and Peter Torres, Jr., P.C., Appellants v. Margaret Villegas and Tom Tourtellotte, Appellees FROM THE COUNTY
More information